GRC Conference Report 2021

Responsible
Research
Assessment
Global Research Council (GRC)
Conference Report 2021
A virtual conference from the
Global Research Council | held in November 2020
1
 Responsible Research Assessment

Conference Hosts: UK Research and Innovation

(UKRI), National Research Foundation (NRF) and UK
Forum for Responsible Research Metrics.
Report prepared by:
Claire Fraser, Marie-Helene Nienaltowski, Kate Porter
Goff, Catriona Firth, Ben Sharman, Michael Bright, and
Silvia Martins Dias.
May 2021
Acknowledgements: GRC Responsible Research
Assessment (RRA) Conference Advisory Group, GRC
Executive Support Group, GRC Governing Board and UK
Forum for Responsible Research Metrics.

2
 GRCGRC
Conference
Conference
Report
Report
2021
2021

CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................. 4
Context.................................................. 6
Key analytics from the conference..... 8
Thematic analysis...............................12
1 Research assessment shapes research culture.......................................... 13

2 Diverse Research and Innovation (R&I) sectors create high-quality

research and impact. This should be supported in
research assessments..............................................................................14

3 Carefully considered and formed research assessment criteria

and processes foster a healthy R&I system............................................... 16

4 Global approaches to RRA are pivotal to high-quality research and

impact but they must be cognisant of local context, culture
and language........................................................................................... 21

5 Funders must steward the system by acting and exerting the

power they hold to influence other stakeholders.......................................22

3
 Responsible Research
Responsible Research Assessment
Assessment

Executive The key points

presented in this
Summary summary reflect
discussions held
by speakers and
A conference on Responsible Research
participants.
Assessment was held with the support
of the Global Research Council from
23 to 27 November 2020. This report
presents the context for the conference,
some key analytics and the main
discussion outcomes. It also proposes
next steps for the GRC.

“funders can
“global approaches
kick-start other
“global collaboration must be mindful of
changes in the
is essential to RRA” local context, culture
assessment system”
and language”

“assessment must “assessment should

encompass diverse value an individual’s
“assessment influences “RRA can support net contribution
perspectives and
what is valued in the a healthy, vibrant to research”
experiences”
research ecosystem” R&I system”

4
 GRC Conference Report 2021

1
Research assessment influences how research is performed and disseminated
Research What funders value and measure will influence what is valued in the research
assessment shapes ecosystem

research culture Funders can initiate positive culture change through careful design and
implementation of research assessment
As stewards of the R&I system, funders must address barriers to cultural change,
especially pressures to perform in university league tables.

2
Diverse R&I sectors A funder’s definition of research excellence needs to be multidimensional
Research excellence should encompass perspectives and experiences from
create high-quality people of all backgrounds
research and impact Funders must support diversity through a broad portfolio of funding.

3
Fostering a healthy Funders should employ clear criteria, relevant indicators, and regular
self-evaluation
R&I system that Funders should experiment with new processes and test that they have the
does not undermine desired outcomes
Addressing bias and providing equal opportunities are essential to the
diversity integrity of the research assessment process and should not be hindered by a
resistance to change.

4
Approaches must be mindful of local context, culture, language and
Research and unintended consequences which impact other countries
scholarship are Funders across the globe should agree on what conditions are required to
transnational support a healthy, vibrant R&I system
Funders should work together to achieve high level coordination on what is
endeavours valued and assessed as collaboration can deliver systemic change.

5
All stakeholders in All stakeholders should collaborate to develop and evaluate RRA and resist
shifting blame to other parties
the R&I ecosystem Resistance to change should be countered through rewarding responsible
play a vital role in assessments
Buy-in for new approaches can be achieved through co-creation.
its construction

These key discussion points, together with the working

paper published by Research on Research Institute (RoRI)
ahead of the conference1, have helped to inform next
steps that the GRC, as a convenor and facilitator with
global reach, should consider in enabling RRA to evolve
and improve.

1. https://rori.figshare.com/articles/report/The_changing_role_of_funders_in_responsible_research_assessment_progress_
obstacles_and_the_way_ahead/13227914 5
 Responsible Research Assessment

Context
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) in
collaboration with the UK Forum for
Responsible Research Metrics and the
National Research Foundation (NRF)
in South Africa, delivered a GRC Virtual
The GRC is a virtual network of research funding agencies
dedicated to the promotion of sharing data and best
practices for high-quality collaboration among funding
agencies worldwide. The virtual conference replaced a
face-to-face meeting due to take place as a satellite
conference to the GRC’s 9th Annual Meeting in Durban in
May 2020, which was postponed due to COVID-19.

Conference on RRA during 23-27 The conference was aimed primarily at senior
representatives from GRC participating organisations
November 2020. and therefore focused on RRA as undertaken by funders
(while considering their role within a wider ecosystem).

The conference aimed to develop a shared

understanding of the topic of RRA, bring together
colleagues from GRC participant organisations,
raise awareness of RRA processes and criteria
with funders globally.
6
 GRC Conference Report 2021

The conference partners invited participants to consider existing sector-wide

frameworks on RRA and encouraged a global discussion on how funders can drive
and support a positive research culture through research assessment criteria and
processes. The conference explored at a high level the research ecosystem and
range of stakeholders who influence and impact on research assessment before
delving into the roles which funders play.

Focused discussion took place around three areas:

• funders’ research assessment criteria and processes
• funders’ assessment of their own performance
• the direct and indirect influence of funders on research
organisations’ assessment criteria
and processes.

The conference was an opportunity to share good practice and develop a common
understanding of the research assessment criteria and processes currently utilised
by international funders for the assessment of research and researchers, as well
as the challenges research funders face when implementing these criteria and
processes responsibly.

Closed discussions were held in regional sessions for senior representatives from

GRC participating organisations during conference week. Their purpose was to
facilitate a deeper exploration of the themes arising from the plenary content in
order to develop a detailed understanding of regional perspectives and to build
consensus on the role of funders in promoting and supporting RRA processes and
criteria at a senior level.

Conference attendees were invited to fill out a conference feedback survey at the
end of the conference; nearly a quarter of attendees who had actively participated2
in the conference responded.
A set of working definitions
Ahead of the conference, RoRI launched a working paper on The changing role were also made available to
of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles and the attendees (see Annex A).
way ahead.1 This was developed through a survey of GRC participant members,
combined with desk-research on the state of play. Many of the topics addressed
in the survey of GRC participants were raised throughout the conference. Cross-
referencing to the survey analysis has been included in this conference summary
report. The working paper clearly states that many frameworks on RRA already
exist and that the focus for the GRC’s discussions going forward should be on how
to interpret these in the context of the public funders’ role. This paper acted as
an important springboard and informed discussions at the conference. It was well
received in the community. 55% of the conference feedback survey respondents
said that they found this working paper to be informative and a good document
to use for preparation for the conference and subsequent participation in the
conference discussions.

2. It is to be noted that conference delegates can be referred to as registrants or active participants in this document.
As this was a free virtual conference, anyone could register to attend but not all of those who registered (referred
to registrants) actively participated in the conference. Active participation is defined as participating in at least one
session at the conference.
7
 Responsible Research Assessment

Key analytics from

the conference
Types of content during
the conference week

Content

43
Approximately 15 hours of plenary
content was available for participants to
watch and participate in, as well as ‘coffee
lounges’, which were informal sessions for
delegates to meet and chat with other
delegates. This diagram provides a
breakdown of the types of content
made available.
Total sessions

38 22 9 7 5
Total sessions Plenary content, Short videos Coffee Closed Regional
available to all including the panel introducing Lounges Sessions (by
participants sessions, keynotes, existing invitation only)
Q&As and regional frameworks
reflections on RRA

Speakers
The conference brought together the perspectives of 45 international speakers from across all 5 GRC regions and
captured many existing practices and approaches to RRA from funders internationally. Throughout the week there was
open discussion on how all funders, regardless of their current engagement on issues of RRA, can improve their approaches
to support a diverse and thriving research culture. Speakers were chosen with diversity in mind. For example, women
represented 56% of the speakers during conference week.3

3. Speakers were suggested by: GRC Gender Working Group, GRC Executive Support Group, the GRC RRA Conference
Advisory Group, the UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics, and the Declaration on Research Assessment’s
Steering Committee and Advisory Board.
8
 GRC Conference Report 2021

Delegates
Recognising that our primary audience - senior management in GRC funding
organisations – would likely be juggling a normal workload alongside attending GRC Region
the virtual conference, the agenda was designed to be as flexible as possible (GRC participant
(e.g. through many on-demand sessions). It is difficult to quantify attendance organisation only)
from senior management from GRC participant organisations given registrants
identified their job titles in a variety of ways, but it is clear from the registrants’
data that a sizeable proportion of registrants were from the targeted audience.
This is also supported by senior management attendance at regional sessions 55 45
(which were by invitation-only).
46
As this is an important topic requiring global partnerships and cooperation, it was
vital for the event to be freely accessible to interested parties. At the end of the 102
conference week, 1078 individuals registered.
The graphs below provide some breakdowns of registrants by GRC participation,
location, organisation type and (self-assessed) topic knowledge. 179

Organisation

GRC participant Non-GRC participant GRC Region

427 651
(all delegates)

81 127
100
263

Type of organisation
507
207
352 Funders
Americas
74 Research Performing Organisations Europe
Publisher/Learned society Sub-saharan Africa
Other Asia-Pacific
445
Middle East and North Africa
(MENA)

RRA knowledge and understanding

150 49109

1 (Poor) 2 3 4 5 (Excellent)
377 393

9
 Responsible Research Assessment

85%
of the conference feedback
survey respondents agreed
45%
of respondents said that the
conference had significantly
55%
of the respondents
agreed to take forward
that the conference met their increased their knowledge actions arising from
expectations. and understanding of the conference.
RRA.

..with many ..with some expressing

highlighting the their willingness to
excellent speakers, share and disseminate
the thought- the RRA concept within
provoking talks, the their organisation, to
diversity of expertise organise peer dialogue,
and broad spectrum to implement the San
of topics covered at Francisco Declaration on
the conference. Research Assessment
recommendations
in their future
assessments, to
pilot and set up RRA
procedures and criteria
in grants assessment in
line with their mission
and cultural context, as
well to continue
to lobby for fairer
research assessment
practices globally.

10
 GRC Conference Report 2021

Participation
Looking at active participation in sessions, it was interesting to note
that just under half of the registrants actively participated in the Number of
conference.
attendees
On average delegates participated in 5 sessions during conference participating in
week. The following breakdown provides further detail
25% 1 Session

41% 2-5 Sessions

19% 6-10 Sessions

12% 10-19 Sessions

3% 20-30* Sessions
*30 was the maximum
number of sessions watched
by any one delegate. To note:
Session participation is distributed across regions, suggesting that Coffee Lounges and closed
GRC participant organisations worldwide engaged with the content and regional sessions are not
the topic. The graph below shows participation is representative of location included in these figures.
profiles for registrants from GRC participant organisations; therefore, it is to be
expected that nearly half of session participation was from Europe given just
under half of registrants came from there. At the GRC annual meeting 2021,
participants should therefore be broadly familiar with what is being presented
in this report.

Session participation across GRC participant organisations

15 48 13
Americas
Europe
7 Sub-saharan Africa
17 Asia-Pacific
MENA

All figures above only include engagement during conference week. The content
created for and during the conference was available until 25 February 2021 to
those who registered for the conference via the conference platform. Many caught
up on sessions they were unable to watch after the conference week. Between
the end of the conference and the end of the period where registrants had access
to the conference material on the conference platform on February 26, 2021, 60
registrants watched content on the platform; a few seemingly used the time
to catch-up on a lot of sessions. The conference content was thereafter made
publicly available to watch on the GRC YouTube channel.4

4. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEuLK_JPExentZ1XA8bGDWw 11
 Responsible Research Assessment

Thematic
analysis
The conference agenda was developed
to cover the breadth of the topic and
demonstrate the importance of funders’
role in the research ecosystem. As hoped,
the conference fostered important and
fruitful discussions on the topic.

This section presents an analysis of all the conference content. The key
discussion points were drawn out into the following high-level points:

1 Research assessment shapes research culture

2 Diverse R&I sectors create high-quality research and impact.
This should be supported in research assessments
3 Carefully considered and formed research assessment
criteria and processes foster a healthy R&I system
4 Global approaches to RRA are pivotal to high-quality
research and impact but they must be cognisant of local
context, culture and language
5 Funders must steward the system by acting and exerting the
power they hold to influence other stakeholders.

The analysis reflects the discussions throughout conference week. The discussions
reiterate the existing principles of RRA described in the RoRI working paper1 and
the conference introductory material. The analysis draws out emerging findings
for funders on their role in implementing RRA, including current progress and
challenges. The GRC will use this information to inform future work on this topic.
The information presented as part of this analysis does not currently reflect the
position of the GRC.

12
 GRC Conference Report 2021

1
Research
assessment shapes
research culture

Research assessment shapes the research landscape and influences how research is
performed, who it is performed by and how it is disseminated. Research assessment
processes and criteria must incentivise, and recognise, all behaviours that establish
the R&I system that stakeholders would like to foster. What is valued and how it is
measured will drive research culture within and across disciplines, and at national and
international levels.

Research funders are stewards of the R&I system. Funders should take responsibility
and use their power and influence in the research ecosystem to initiate positive change,
leading by example.

Funders must consider how the things they value will translate to what is valued in
the wider research ecosystem. Research assessment approaches that inform funding
allocations map onto individuals and individual behaviours, even where the aim is to
assess teams or organisations. Funders must think about research assessment in the
context of the individual.

While the research system is interdependent (see theme 5), funders are in a crucial
position with more freedom than other stakeholders to initiate change.5 Funders could
move faster and be more radical in in driving RRA and tackling deep systemic issues
but they cannot deliver systemic change alone (see theme 4). However, funders can be
subject to limited resources, lack of sustainable resources, and government policy shifts.

The pressure to perform in university league tables is a barrier to research culture

change. Global rankings and league tables influence the higher education system.
Prospective students use them to select where they should study (and graduate
employers use them to select talent), the academy use them to decide where to work
and apply for promotion, universities use them to market themselves, and funders use
them to support decision making.

Many university rankings use a small number of proxies of quality (e.g. a narrow set of
metrics) to compare very different research performing organisations. League tables
often do not measure what matters to the R&I system and they do not demonstrate
excellence at a useful scale for the users of this information (for example, pockets of
excellence are not captured).

If a research organisation wishes to ‘climb’ the league table, then they will need
to improve on the indicators of quality which are informing the rank. The values of
organisations are therefore directly influenced. Stakeholders who use or consume the
rankings need to be provided with a much better service.

Funders should:
a.not use existing rankings to inform research assessments
b.not create rankings themselves but instead provide much more
nuanced information in an accessible form
c. take steps to reduce reliance on poorly constructed rankings across
other stakeholder groups.

5. This is due to a number of factors including, but not limited to: funders may have quite a lot of control over the way they allocate
money; many funders can set up their own funding criteria and processes which the R&I sector respond to; funders themselves are not
competing for money in the same ways as individual researchers and research organisations; some funders can consider the health of 13
the whole R&I system especially where they are multidisciplinary funders; funders are not usually ranked like other stakeholders.
 Responsible Research Assessment

2
Diverse R&I sectors create high quality
research and impact. This should be
supported in research assessments.

The definition of research excellence and impact must be multidimensional.

There is no clear, measurable definition of research excellence. It often refers to
outstanding performance and relates to reputation and standing, covering both the
process and outcomes of research. Excellence is even harder to define than research
quality. Quality emerges from a diverse system; however there has been a tendency
to define quality in unitary ways that are globally applicable. Standards used to define
excellence often incorporate the international impact of research, but these same
standards often ‘score’ the research that has a local, regional or problem-solving
perspective as lower in quality. If quality is multidimensional, so should be
the definition of excellence.

There are challenges with demonstrating research impact due to its wide definitions.
However, defining impact should also be multidimensional and based on context,
discipline and location, as well as accounting for what impact is being assessed
(impact of research, funders or programmes).

Examples include incorporating sex, gender and intersectionality (gendered

innovations) into the definition of excellent research.6 Research ethics is an important
consideration, particularly for emerging economies. Open research should be a
dimension of excellence, which can in turn support research integrity.7 Funders should
incentivise these dimensions in their assessment criteria (whether at project grant
or organisation level) and mandate policies and processes to progress behavioural
change (e.g. Wellcome which mandates open access and requires a commitment from
funded organisations to principles of RRA8).

High-quality research is shaped and delivered by a wide range of perspectives and

experience of people from all backgrounds. Globally, the demographics within the
academy do not fully represent the demographics of the society it is aiming to serve.
The research assessment system must accommodate and encourage inclusion and
diversity, including individuals who have had a non-traditional academic career path,
those who have worked within one discipline or multiple disciplines and those who
have had career breaks. Narrative CVs could provide a process to effectively assess
this diversity. There are differences for early career researchers (ECRs), noting that
the existing assessment system broadly favours established researchers, and that
the established community who may have successfully navigated the current system
may be most reluctant to change. When assessing grants, it was noted that funders
need to take into consideration the track record/achievement relative to opportunity,
particularly for ECRs.

14
 GRC Conference Report 2021

Funders play a critical role in addressing issues of equality, diversity and inclusion
(EDI) but these issues are systemic and need also to be addressed by universities.
The quality of research relies on and is improved by inclusivity. Funders’
assessment criteria and processes should be inclusive and promote equality
and diversity. Some funders have introduced processes to address bias, gender
being the most prominent characteristic considered thus far. Other protected
characteristics are less addressed but have been identified as representing major
challenges for the future.9

A broad portfolio of research funding can enable responsible assessment.

Diversity of research is essential for a high-quality R&I system that delivers
real-world outcomes. This includes diverse types of research (basic, applied,
translational) and disciplines10 (including interdisciplinary), and people and
skillsets. The design of assessment criteria which facilitate and support diversity
is challenging but it is vital that progress is made. More should be done by all
stakeholders conducting assessments to support diversity, including building
confidence in assessing differences, even within the same funding schemes.
Funders should have a portfolio of funding schemes with different objectives and
underpinning criteria as this can help to support diversity in the system. Funders
must empower assessment panels to fund diverse projects within these funding
schemes, considering how individual projects can create portfolios of funding (e.g.
balance between basic, ‘blue-sky’, and challenge-oriented research).

6. See data on how many GRC participants (who responded to the GRC survey on RRA) included gender dimension in
research as part of the assessment (RoRI paper p32)
7. See data on how many GRC participants (who responded to the GRC survey on RRA) currently include open access
publication, open research data, and data curation in their research assessment indicators and how many are
considering including these indicators in the future (RoRI paper p33-35, figure 3)
8. https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/guidance/open-access-guidance/open-access-policy, https://wellcome.org/
grant-funding/guidance/research-organisations-how-implement-responsible-and-fair-approaches-research
9. See data on how many GRC participants (who responded to the GRC survey on RRA) adjusted research assessments
to ensure diversity (RoRI paper p32-33, figure 2)
10. See data on how many GRC participants (who responded to the GRC survey on RRA) adjusted research assessments
to ensure diversity of research (RoRI paper p32-33, figure 2)
15
 Responsible Research Assessment

3
Carefully considered and formed
research assessment criteria and
processes foster a healthy R&I system

3a. Research assessment criteria should be broad and use indicators

that assess what is valued
Assessments should be based on a broad set of criteria.11 Narrow assessment
criteria often homogenise research and stifle innovation. This can prevent the
development of new research techniques, hinder progress into emerging and diverse
research fields, and prevent and exclude diverse talent from entering the research
system (see theme 3). Suppression of diversity is made worse by the narrow
assessments informing global university rankings (see theme 1).

The excess emphasis (and narrow use of) bibliometrics in research assessment,
especially the focus on journal-level metrics such as Journal Impact Factor (JIF)
and H-Index is particularly prominent in the Global South for hiring, promotion and
funding purposes (in research organisations and research funders). The narrow use of
bibliometrics suppresses diversity of research and researchers.

Current misapplication of narrow criteria of research quality does

the following:
• creates a ‘publish or perish’ culture
• prevents transition to open science at a sustainable cost
• creates unsustainable pressures on researchers including hyper
competition for jobs and funding
• exacerbates problems with research integrity and reproducibility
(including the publication of the smallest possible units of research)
• leads to a focus on lower-risk/incremental work, bullying and
harassment, poor mental health
• reduces equity - there are also systemic biases against those who do
not meet the narrow criteria.

A holistic approach to assessment should be taken and be based on broad criteria of

quality and impact where metrics complement expert evaluation (peer review is not
free from bias see theme 3b). Seeking and providing context to indicators (qualitative
and quantitative), valuing a range of outputs in assessment criteria, and being

16
 GRC Conference Report 2021

explicit that the long list of criteria is not a checklist, but that only applicable ones are
chosen, are key to delivering RRA.

Assessments should value an individual’s net contribution to research. Broadening

the range of contributions that are recognised in research assessments is vital. It
is an important step towards enabling sustainable research systems, detoxifying
competitive research cultures, removing barriers for under-represented groups, and
improving researcher wellbeing.

The most cited contributions which should be recognised and rewarded are
mentoring and wider services to the research community (such as peer review).
Others included teaching, industrial collaborations, technology transfer, societal
impact, and outreach/engagement with publics beyond the academy.12 It follows that
assessments that value the net contribution of an individual to the system - beyond
their direct research contributions - incentivise researchers to play their individual role
in creating a healthy and inclusive research culture.

Research assessment criteria should be clear and transparent, but this should
not undermine diversity. Funders must be transparent, explicit and clear on the
aims and meaning of each criterion (and supporting indicator) they use in research
assessments. For example, when using ‘Research Quality’ as criterion, they should
clarify for both those being assessed and reviewers, what this encompasses and how
it will be indicated.

However, a tension exists between setting transparent assessment criteria and

supporting diversity, notably EDI. Where the system has moved to a granular
interpretation of transparent criteria setting this will sometimes directly work against
supporting diversity. This may occur where clarity and brevity of criteria outweigh
presenting breadth in assessment criteria. In our effort to make things fair we risk
crushing difference.

Research assessment criteria must be regularly reviewed, discussed and updated.13

Evaluation of research is not fixed in time but is something that evolves, and it must
evolve according to the different level of maturity of the science system for each
country. Indicators should be scrutinised regularly and updated accordingly.

11. See data on the methods of assessment and the indicators currently used and those being considered for future use
from the GRC survey on RRA (RoRI paper 32-35).
12. See data on which indicators are being included in assessment and those being considered in the future from the GRC
survey on RRA (RoRI paper p33, figure 3).
13. See data on the frequency of internal evaluations to test the robustness of research assessments from the GRC
survey on RRA (RoRI paper p38, table 3).
17
 Responsible Research Assessment

3b. Processes play a key role in creating a research assessment

system that is fit for purpose
Transparent processes are one of the principles of RRA and this should be balanced
with the need for privacy. The potential for conflict between achieving transparency
while maintaining privacy in assessments is undeniable. The legal context of the
country or region can dictate whether assessments are put in the public domain
or kept private, but where there is a choice, transparency and privacy can both be
maintained through the following measures:

• putting in place a transparent review process and providing

clarity to all parties on the process
• giving reviewers a chance to provide comments anonymously
(or not)
• showing applicants all reviews; anonymised or not
• providing a rebuttal system even where reviewers’ comments
are anonymised.

Assessment processes can be burdensome and bureaucratic, especially when

new methods are involved. Naturally resistance follows. Assessment processes
are an important quality-assurance gateway for the creation of new knowledge and
innovation which result in societal and economic developments. For funders, there is
a fine balance between providing accountability for decisions made (specifically for
funding allocations) and avoiding unnecessary, lengthy bureaucratic processes.

Burden arising from the implementation of new assessment methods can create
resistance; resistance from applicants and reviewers needs attention but should
not be a barrier. Funders should explain the changes they make and the problems
which the change is aiming to overcome to get buy-in. It should be noted that
resistance may naturally be countered where there is recognition of a need to correct
imbalances, e.g. in gender. Streamlining processes can also somewhat counter
resistance, as it helps to reduce burden across the whole ecosystem.

Well-conducted and thorough assessments are resource-intensive. Therefore,

funders should seek to add automation into the process where possible without
compromising on the assessment itself. Artificial Intelligence is being used by some
to identify and select peer reviewers. Others recommend using data mining tools,
such as Wellcome Reach14, to inform assessments. Consulting stakeholders, early
identification of data needs and pragmatism about data collection are further
helpful suggestions.
18
 GRC Conference Report 2021

Providing feedback is important. Peer-review should be delivered responsibly.

Research organisations spend significant time on grant management; researchers
on writing grant proposals, carrying out and submitting evaluation reports. It is
therefore important to have a feedback mechanism from funding agencies.

Good communication to unsuccessful applicants should consider both when and

whether to give detailed feedback. Where possible, there should be opportunities
for submission of a revised version, giving applicants the opportunity to improve
applications. Feedback, often a sensitive issue, can be provided in many ways,
ranging from just providing a ranking through to fuller qualitative feedback. There
is no consensus amongst funders on which feedback method is best. Some prefer
giving feedback on all proposals (whether funded or not) as although it can be a lot
of work, it builds trust with the sector and is seen as important for transparency.
In all cases, it would be good practice for funders to seek applicants’ and reviewers’
feedback on the review process.

Addressing bias and providing equal opportunities are essential to the integrity
of the research assessment process. Funders need to ensure their decision-making
and grant evaluation processes support equal opportunities.15 It is also important
during the review process to examine where bias may have occurred, for example
by checking if a reviewer has conflicts of interest with existing or ongoing projects.
The recent Science Europe study noted that some forms of bias are scrutinised
frequently (e.g. gender 82 %) but others are less often (e.g. ethnicity 31 %).
Addressing unconscious bias, especially in the context of EDI, require funding
agencies to identify risks of exclusion, and develop the appropriate mitigating
actions in research assessment systems.15

It is important to trial new methods.16 New methods need to be evaluated

carefully to understand what works and what does not. Two examples of innovative
methods that were quoted frequently at the conference are lottery and narrative
CVs. The introduction and implementation of such new methods must be done
iteratively to allow for adjustments and modifications of the methods over time.
Additionally, reviewers must be trained and be repeatedly encouraged to recall
principles of the methods to ensure they do not fall back to using old methods.
There is a need for funding, encouragement of further experimentation and higher
levels of coordination amongst funders across the globe for these trials to become
global and to have meaningful and long-lasting impact.

14. https://reach.wellcomedatalabs.org/about
15. Technopolis (2019) Science Europe Study on Research Assessment Practices. December 2019. https://www.
scienceeurope.org/our-resources/science-europe-study-on-research-assessment-practices/
16. See data from the GRC survey on RRA about experimentation with new assessment systems and funding allocation
methods (RoRI paper p36-38).
19
 Responsible Research Assessment

3c. Funder self-evaluation should be an essential part of RRA

Funder self-evaluation is an important exercise. Funders’ most regularly sighted self-
assessment is a review of their funding portfolio. There is no right or wrong answer
when it comes to choosing timings17 or methodologies for self-evaluation. Funder
self-evaluation carries the same challenges as assessments that aim to understand
the effectiveness of funded research (including demonstrating research impact).
These challenges include the complexity and long timescales involved in measuring
effectiveness, the absence of control experiments and difficulties with seamless
exchange of data. The following suggestions can help funders in overcoming
challenges of performing self-evaluation:

• seek to align evaluations with internal key strategies

• ask external evaluators to look not only at the effectiveness and
impact of funder programmes but also at the funder’s policies
and strategies
• seek evidence to inform and transform their practice by
regularly, continuously and critically reflecting on what funders
fund and how the funded programmes maximise potential to
benefit society.

17. See data from the GRC survey on RRA about the frequency of internal evaluations to test the robustness of research
assessments (RoRI paper p38).
20
 GRC Conference Report 2021

4
Global approaches to RRA are pivotal to high-
quality research and impact but they must be
cognisant of local context, culture and language

Research and scholarship are transnational and therefore reforming research

assessment must be a fully international endeavour. Funders must draw together
consensus about what they are trying to achieve in the R&I system and what
they should be valuing and assessing (e.g. open research, research integrity and
reproducibility). Cooperation and collaboration can enhance research quality, avoid
unnecessary duplication, provide economies of scale, and address issues that can
only be solved by working together. Important benefits of collaboration include
best practice sharing and avoiding disadvantage (actual and perceived) for ‘first
movers’. Collaboration can be an opportunity to improve assessments, improve
the data underpinning the assessments and supporting a better understanding on
constraints and limitations of certain approaches.

International collaboration is important but local/regional context must be

considered to realise a truly excellent system. Assessments should support
researchers to move freely and collaborate effectively and should not restrict
individuals. However, the finite balance of research regulation for international
researchers, safeguarding indigenous knowledge (including brain drain) and
enhancing intra-regional collaboration must be considered. Working globally is
important but it must contribute to developing vibrant research ecosystems and
economies locally. Not all regions and nations are starting from the same point, with
diverse implementation of RRA principles and practices.

Therefore, defining the concept of ‘quality research’ at an international level needs

a careful understanding of regional/local context. This includes recognising that
local knowledge is important for research capability and discovery (particularly in
emerging economies), funding constraints and political context, protecting language
and dialect in the assessment of the proposals, the value of the research output/
impact, and EDI considerations. Additionally, funders should appropriately consider
proposals which are translated into a common language because assessments for
such proposals have an impact on rigour, fairness and transparency.

Some regions rely to a great extent on international peer reviewers (due to limited
local resource with the correct expertise and potential conflicts of interest) and it is
not clear how much local context they have and if this impacts their review.

Funders’ research assessment criteria and processes at a national level influences

the system globally which can exacerbate the global north/south divide. Large
publication databases are biased towards commercial publishers (e.g. Scopus and
WoS). Due to differences in scholarly communication systems, for example in Latin
America, which is dominated by university presses and non-commercial providers,
limited publication data exacerbates inequalities in the system and stifles the
success of non-commercial publishers. Funders must adopt an approach which
enables equity, diversity and open research.

21
 Responsible Research Assessment

5
Funders must steward the system by
acting and exerting the power they hold
to influence other stakeholders

Collaboration is needed across all stakeholder groups to inform, develop and

evaluate RRA. Systemic change (see theme 1) is required and needs a coordinated
and consistent approach across stakeholder groups. It is important that all
stakeholders work in partnership to truly embrace the responsibility of research
assessment. Funders are important stewards of the system and play an influential
role but governments, research organisations, publishers, rankers, other regulators
(for example where the quality of teaching at an organisation is regulated or
monitored by another body) must also review and change their approaches.

Each stakeholder group’s actions can condition the behaviour of individual researchers
in significant ways and it is up to the whole research community to work together to
achieve cultural change. However, most stakeholder groups shift the blame of the
toxic culture to another party.

There is resistance to change by a variety of stakeholder groups. In practice, a

concerted effort across all stakeholder groups is challenging. Among the main
obstacles to implementing RRA are the resistance to change by the academic
community and the influence of commercial publishers and league tables. The
resistance from the academic community is driven by concerns about maintaining
quality in the assessments (e.g. how robust and reliable new paradigms are,
compared to the standards that have been in use for the last decades).

Another concern is the perceived complexity, to external reviewers, of thorough

qualitative research assessments. For those researchers who are well rewarded by
the current evaluation system, there is little incentive to change the status quo. The
system must reward each group and individual for taking responsibility to deliver
responsible assessments and the academic community should rein in the power it
has historically given to stakeholders such as commercial publishers, commercial
providers of research analytics services, and rankers. Senior leaders in research
organisations are pivotal to this shift and must drive forward cultural changes by
placing less emphasis on external measures of their organisational prowess. The
system needs cohesion to support senior leaders to deliver this.

Funders can (where possible) take leadership and use their power to kick-start
other changes in the system (see theme 1). It is crucial for funders to understand
how their actions shape the R&I system. This involves a deep engagement and
collaboration with stakeholders (including academia, government, third sector, and
international community) to understand how they work and how funder policies will
impact on how they do their business.

22
 GRC Conference Report 2021

It is apparent that all funders do not have a consistent level of delegated authority
from their governments to change criteria and processes for research assessment.

For some funders, implementation of new approaches and broader indicators of

quality have been received with mistrust from the sector, and narrow measures
of quality are still perceived as the most important indicators in the assessment
of grants or organisations. Engaging the research community in the development
of assessment criteria through co-creation will ensure buy-in and confidence in
the approach developed. Where champions and/or experts are engaged, change is
much better heard from the research community.

23
 Responsible Research Assessment

Regional Perspectives

The tables below include some key points raised in each of the regional meetings.
The full reports can be found at Annex B.

Americas
RRA implementation is diverse across the region, as new approaches are tested
and evaluated in each context.
The definition of RRA includes EDI, however the assessment approaches to best
support and promote EDI in assessment were debated.
RRA and societal value/impact interplay. Mission-oriented research is desired
by funders but the ecosystem challenges this shift (especially where curiosity-
driven research has been the norm).
Assessments should value local delivery and application of research as well as
global impacts.
There is resistance to change research assessments from the academic
community. Cost and complexity to implement novel approaches was a real
barrier for change.

Sub-Saharan Africa
Context is particularly important for the region, especially for emerging
economies who are developing national research ecosystems.
A systems wide approach across the region was desired to strengthen RRA.
Open Science is an emerging policy area for funders in the region. Approaches to
open science differ by agency country or region based on context.
There is a need to strengthen capacities of research performing organisations to
undertake RRA.
The region can share experiences and knowledge about dealing with unconscious
bias, especially in the context of EDI.

Europe
Funders in the region range from conservative to revolutionary in the ways they
assess research.
European funders would like to agree common approaches and methodology for
assessments, especially useful in the context of the European Commission and
funding from Horizon Europe. The region noted the opportunity to collaborate
globally and seek agreement.
Despite efforts from funding agencies indicators like JIF may be used by
reviewers (especially ad-hoc reviewers where practice cannot be called out by
panel members) and embedding widespread reform is needed.
Assessment of interdisciplinary research tends to be conservative especially
where reviewers do not feel expert across the disciplines and where funding is
tight. Similar issues were noted for high-risk, high reward research.
Funders must have a diverse portfolio of uncorrelated risk where individual
programmes have different objectives and therefore assessment mechanisms.

24
 GRC Conference Report 2021

Asia-Pacific
Each country in the region reflected differences in how inequity appears in their
systems e.g. geography, gender or ethnicity. Funders in the region have put in
place positive action (otherwise known as affirmative action) for indigenous
people, women and early career researchers.
Where there is not a level playing field for applicants there needs to be provision
of resources for applicants to be able to develop sound and coherent proposals.
Some funders have an emphasis on preventing misconduct and one funder has
put in place greater checks and balances on the misrepresentation of research
and possible fraudulent applications.
Countries within the region have multiple languages and funders need to
support the assessment (including assessors) for parity.
Some funders in the region have a limited number of peer reviewers (which
raises the chances for conflicts of interest), and they rely on international
reviewers who may not understand local context.
A suggested way to improve RRA was to both include clauses to enforce RRA
in contracts and provide expectations in guidance for all research organisations
that might have either funding already in place or for future funding.
There is growing recognition that impact assessment of research funding should
be performed although it is recognised that this takes effort and is expensive.
Funders have used various methods to demonstrate impact.

Middle East and North Africa

The region does not have an agreed definition of RRA however, it was
considered an important topic for further discussion. Key to the definition will
be local and contextual sensitivities.
EDI is a core value in the region, with specific interventions for women and early
career researchers in assessments.
Bureaucracy is a barrier. Research assessment criteria and processes would need
to be updated in law and this is not delivered by the funders in the region.
Funders in the region are impacted by limited resources and lack of sustainable
funding (from governments and private sector contributors).
Funders recognise the lack of stakeholder engagement in the research process.
The region plan to address this in support of RRA.

25
 Responsible Research Assessment

Next steps for RRA for the GRC

Many existing principles on RRA were discussed during the conference, providing
a clear rationale for action. It resonated that the policy landscape is crowded and
further frameworks/principles on RRA are not needed. Instead funders should
focus their efforts on embedding existing principles and taking concrete actions to
incentivise and fulfil RRA ambitions. Any future support from the GRC must factor
in that not all regions and nations are starting from the same point, with diverse
existing implementation of RRA principles and practices.

Funders should think about how to make sustainable and systemic changes. The
GRC could support funders to deliver systemic change by defining what this means
in practice.

In addition to implementing the existing principles, funders need to evaluate their

policies. Testing and identifying how research assessments can support building a
healthy and productive research culture within the context of each nation and region
will provide a richer understanding of what works in what context. This should also
clarify the specific barriers faced in the implementation of RRA across the globe.

26
 GRC Conference Report 2021

In the conference closing remarks the outgoing

“
Chair of the GRC Governing Board asked for

an open, global forum where common

values and important differences can be
debated and articulated, and where good
practices emerging from experimentation and
evaluation can be shared. This will enable the
concept of RRA to evolve and improve. Given
its global reach, the GRC is well placed to play
a role in convening and facilitating such a

”
forum, ensuring that voices from across
the research world are involved.

27
UK Forum for Responsible
Research Metrics